IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rgovxx/v7y2022i4p633-657.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Migration regimes and the governance of citizenship: a comparison between legal categories of migration in China and in the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Paola Pasquali

Abstract

This paper aims at providing a general picture of how the citizenship migration nexus currently unfolds in China and in the European Union (EU). Although China is a nation state and the EU is a supranational entity, both entities are characterised by internal and external politico-legal borders delineating two self-contained migration areas. Drawing on a definition of citizenship which transcends its usual national connotation, this paper will review and compare how different migration categories available to individuals on the move (citizens and non-citizens) come with differential accesses to citizenship rights within the two contexts. The comparison will show that in spite of different approaches towards irregular migration, welfare and humanitarian issues, current categories of migration within these two migration regimes converge in the way in which they grant differential access to citizenship rights based on the (assumed) economic worth of individuals on the move. The final part of this paper reflects upon the lessons that each system could draw from the other and postulates such convergence as an indicator of the correlation between the granting of citizenship rights and neoliberal imperatives in the governance of migration worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Paola Pasquali, 2022. "Migration regimes and the governance of citizenship: a comparison between legal categories of migration in China and in the European Union," Journal of Chinese Governance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 633-657, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rgovxx:v:7:y:2022:i:4:p:633-657
    DOI: 10.1080/23812346.2020.1791505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/23812346.2020.1791505
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/23812346.2020.1791505?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rgovxx:v:7:y:2022:i:4:p:633-657. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rgov .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.